Interview with Azerbaijani Milli Majlis deputy, political scientist Rasim Musabayov.
Q: How can you comment on the statement of Azerbaijani FM Elmar Mammadyarov that Azerbaijan suggests Armenia starting work on the peace agreement on the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict without delay?
A: In fact, Elmar Mammadyarov has repeated the Russian proposal voiced after the meeting of the presidents in Kazan that despite the differences between the conflicting parties on the basic principles of the resolution, the reconciliation of positions helps not to stop on the remaining differences but to move forth. The agreement on basic principles is a political rather than a legal document. It envisages the shift to working on the peace deal upon reaching the agreement by the sides. Mammadyarov offers to fix a common accord on principles, which was practically done in Astana at the OSCE summit when Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan joined the Muscock statement of Presidents Obama-Medvedev-Sarkozy where the most critical of the principles and elements of Karabakh settlement were listed, and shift directly to the work at the text of the agreement.
Russians would clearly want to make the parties sign a special statement. It will firstly raise the prestige and show the result of President Medvedev’s mediation. Secondly, even without the Armenian-desired paragraph about the future status of Nagorno Karabakh, this document does not envisage the indirect withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied lands, but binds Azerbaijan in terms of nonuse of force for liberation of occupied lands in the internationally recognized borders. Taking into account the fact that Armenians retain an opportunity to protract the work at the text of the peace team endlessly, Moscow will ensure the main task, which means the conservation of the status quo for at least a couple of years. But we are interested in not a common declaration but a real shift to liberation of the occupied lands.
Therefore, I think that Mammadyarov’s proposal is rational and I support it. I have been suggesting stopping on the common agreement on basic principles and shifting to the main work at the peace deal for already two years ahead of every presidential meeting. For the sake of coordinating principles, they were constantly being smoothed and made ambiguous. But there must be no differences in the text, since not a political agreement but a treaty will be fulfilled. In other words, I am fully for Mammadyarov’s proposal.
Q: A bit earlier Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said that no one puts any pressure on official Yerevan. How does this statement of the Armenian state comply with the practical model of the conduct of this country in the negotiation process on the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict?
A: Armenians love to pronounce intricate phrases and put the best face on matters. The freedom of their actions is seriously restricted by the Russian patron. Financial dependence on credits and donations of the US and the European Union also does not ensure their freedom in actions. On the other hand, Armenians treated differently, in reality, no one wants to put a real pressure on them and are just persuading. Meanwhile, the co-chairing countries have almost nothing to put pressure on Azerbaijan. Additionally, all interests of the United States, France, EU and Russia in the South Caucasus region are concentrated in Azerbaijan, rather than Armenia or even Georgia.
Q: I would like to touch upon the above indicated statement by Serzh Sargsyan. Among the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries are Russia that holds a military base in Armenia, the United States, the only country in the world that officially allocates a financial aid to the so-called ‘NKR’ and France, where the Armenian lobby is strong. Is it possible to expect these co-chairs to be just, not speaking of the pressure on Armenia, and won’t it be more fair to include Turkey into this group for balance?
A: I have already answered this question in part. The efforts of the Minsk Group co-chairs are aimed firstly at securing Armenians from hard defeat which is imminent in the future since the balance of powers is steadily changing in Azerbaijan’s favor. Secondly, they need promotion of the settlement to ensure their own interests in Azerbaijan. As for Turkey, it is the member of the Minsk Group and is kept in the loop of the process. Turkey is in a constant dialogue with the leadership of Russia, United States and France regarding this issue. However, in order to be a mediator, Turkey must restore diplomatic ties with Armenia, open borders and distance from Azerbaijan. I don’t think that this would promote the process. Let Turkey just be on our side than to play a role of one more ineffective mediator.
Q: Can Azerbaijan restore its territorial integrity by force and which will be the reaction of the world community overall and of Russia, United States and France, in particular?
A: It is theoretically difficult to answer this question. In full compliance with the UN charter and international law, Azerbaijan has a right to restore the territorial integrity of the country. It is not at random that Russia and others want to impose on us the obligation of solely the peace settlement of the conflict and nonuse of force.
But it does not mean that war is expedient. We are a small state and we must be very cautious in such matters, while reasonable assessing the global and regional balance of powers and the reaction of superpowers, since even in case local military success is reached, political disbursements may turn out significantly higher. All the same, it is necessary to take into account the humanitarian part of the issue, since war means new deaths, destruction, spoiled lives and hatred. Until there are diplomatic opportunities for the resolution, they must be used to the ultimate moment to achieve the peace solution to the conflict. In all cases, we cannot get rid of Armenians as neighbors.
Akper Hasanov
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
